Read Time: 07 minutes
On January 27, Lokpal, led by ex-SC judge A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled that the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Lokpal Act, 2013
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, February 20, stayed a Lokpal's decision that had held it has jurisdiction over high court judges.
Notably, the apex court had taken suo moto cognizance of the Lokpal's decision of January 27. While terming the decision taken by Lokpal as 'something very very disturbing,' the court put it on hold.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka ordered, "Issue notice to the Union of India, the Registrar of Lokpal, and the complainant. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to mask the identity of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order shall remain stayed. We further direct the complainant not to disclose the name of the judge against whom the complaint has been filed."
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, asserted that the order was wrong and said that a high court judge will never come within the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
".....High Court judge will never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act. There are constitutional provisions. I have some judgements to show,...." SG submitted before the court.
In response, Justice Abhay S Oka added that all judges are appointed under the Constitution of India.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also criticized the decision of the Lokpal and stated, "Anyways milord, I think the law should be laid down. Lordship should stay the order."
On January 27, the Lokpal led by former Supreme Court Judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled that high court judges qualify as public servants under Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and that the concerned high court was established by an Act of Parliament.
The Lokpal's order was passed while dealing with two complaints filed by the same complainant against a sitting additional judge of the high court, alleging that the named judge had influenced the concerned additional district judge, and a judge of the same high court handling the suit filed against the complainant by a private company, to favour that company. It was alleged that the private company was an earlier client of the named high court Judge, while he was practising as an advocate.
While citing the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswamy (supra), the Lokpal ordered, "A priori, we deem it appropriate to forward the subject complaints and relevant materials received in the Registry in these two matters, to the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration."
The order further clarified that it had not examined or made comments on the merits of the allegations. It added, "....We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally - as to whether the Judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less...."
Recently, the Lokpal held that while Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, qualify as public servants under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they do not fall within its jurisdiction.
Case Title IN RE: ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLARY ISSUES
Please Login or Register
